A Primer on Canon 915

Unquestionably, canon 915 is
the most discussed canon in the Codex Iuris Canonici, or Code of Canon Law, in
recent Church history. Many in the media have reported on the January 8, 2004
canonical actions of Archbishop Raymond Burke, then bishop of the La Crosse,
Wisconsin diocese.

Archbishop Burkeís discipline on legislators has rocked the Catholic Church
worldwide. Because of misinformation, speculation and outright resentment,
confusion reigns regarding the Archbishop's promulgation of his 'canonical
notification' based on canon 915,
the official communication of what the Church's discipline is.

I would like to make some important clarifications, with appropriate
documentation, in hopes that people of all faiths will understand the
Archbishop's actions, why it was appropriate for him to discipline persistent,
obstinate, manifest pro abortion Catholic legislators, and why no other U.S.
Bishop can refuse to immediately follow the same procedures in their own
dioceses. All Bishops must protect the Eucharist from sacrilege.

As Bishop of the over 200,000 Catholics in the diocese of La Crosse,
Wisconsin for the past nine years, Raymond L. Burke, D.D., J.C.D., a canon
lawyer, first conducted private communications to three 'Catholic' legislators,
imploring them, "to make their consciences correct with Magisterial teachings."

After all three politicians refused to meet with him, saying they instead
reject the Church's infallible teachings, Archbishop Burke, as 'Priest, Prophet
and King,' then took the necessary steps to issue the four paragraph 'canonical
notification' to address the scandal they were causing in his diocese by their
conduct 'which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm'
(EE n.37).

The notification declares: "...Catholic legislators who are members of the
faithful of the Diocese of La Crosse and who continue to support procured
abortion or euthanasia may not present themselves to receive Holy Communion.
They are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, should they present themselves,
until such time as they publicly renounce their support of these most unjust
practices" (canon 915).

Archbishop Burke exhorted, "No good bishops could stand by and let this
happen. These public legislators are in grave sin."

However, no other bishop other than Archbishop Burke, out of the 195 dioceses
in the U.S., has issued canonical notifications against their manifest
politician sinners.

In fact, on February 2, 2004, Archbishop Burke, with apostolic daring,
challenged Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley, stating that if leading Democratic
presidential candidate, pro-abortion ëCatholicí John Kerry, a Massachusetts
senator, came up to [Burke] for the Eucharist, he Burke] would deny him
Communion. Archbishop O'Malley still held to his false policy that Kerry would
not be denied Communion in the Boston diocese.

On April 6, 2004, Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz, D.d., S.T.D., of the Lincoln,
NE diocese,
stated through his office to this writer that his diocese would deny Holy
Communion to any manifest, persistent, obstinate sinner.

Referring to canon 915, Bishop
Bruskewitz said, ìWe agree completely with Archbishop Raymond Burke in the
action he has taken and we would take the same action in the diocese of Lincoln
with regard to manifest, persistent, obstinate sinners, including politicians,
regardless of which diocese they are from.î

Bishop Bruskewitz in May 15, 1996, issued a successful diocesan synodal
law, still enforced today, which carries an automatic penalty of
excommunication.

Informing all Catholics in his diocese of the list of dissenting
organizations whose activities are contrary to the Catholic Faith, Bruskewitz
has literally ëcleaned house.í

In the past several years, only several other U.S. Bishops have made half
hearted attempts to stop the sacrilegious Holy Communions and scandals caused by
pro-abortion politicians in their dioceses. Unfortunately, they all stopped
short of publicly promulgating a canonical notification of canon 915.

There is no easy way to find out if a politician in your diocese is Catholic
unless he advertised himself as such. La Crosse's Dr. Arthur Hippler, Director
of Office of Justice and Peace told this writer:

"We have the so-called 'Blue Bookí, which lists politicians in the State of
Wisconsin but the book doesn't list religious denomination. We have no exact
count how many Catholic politicians there are in the diocese. In the case of the
politicians with whom His Excellency corresponded, he had letters from the lay
faithful, asking him to address such-and-such politician, who was Catholic and
pro-abortion. The Bishop was responding to scandal among the faithful."

This confirms just how imperative it is for the laity to write letters and to
send ëdenunciation
packagesí to their Bishops in protest to these scandalous so-called Catholic
pro-abortion legislators.

Most everyone in La Crosse is waiting to see how the new Bishop, still
unnamed, will uphold the notification. I spoke to La Crosse's Chancellor, Mr.
Benedict T. Nguyen about this.

"The new Bishop will understand the notification was given in response to the
specific scandalous situations that existed in the diocese. If a new Bishop
coming in says that these conditions have not been met, he would cause great
confusion," said Nguyen.

Archbishop Burke further clarified, "If there was a contradiction in this
'notification' with the next Bishop of La Crosse, the people certainly could go
to Rome for clarification."

All diocesan priests and deacons are ecclesiastically bound to obey the
canonical notification (c.915). Canon 915 places the responsibility on the
minister - 'ne admittantur' - who, in some canonists' opinion, could be punished
according to canon 1389 ß2, should he unlawfully administer the sacrament with
the consequent danger of scandal for the rest of the faithful. In addition,
canon 1339 prescribes the possibility of punishing any person who causes grave
scandal by any violation of a divine or ecclesiastical law.

The Code of Canon Law (CIC), or "Codex Iuris Canonici" has always been in
effect. It was codified in 1917 and contained 2,414 canons. It was
revised in
1983 by Pope John Paul II and contains 1,752 canons.

Canon 915 is promulgated within
CIC, Book IV, "The Sanctifying Office of the Church," within Title III, "The
Blessed Eucharist," within Chapter I, "The Celebration of the Eucharist," within
Article 2, "Participation in the Blessed Eucharist." Neither this
canon 915 nor Bishop Burke's
'notification' applies to the reception of the other Sacraments.

Cases considered in this canon 915
also include: 1] any interdict or excommunication ferendÊ sententiÊ (one
inflicted by the superior); 2] the same penalties latÊ sententiÊ (inflicted by
the perpetrator on himself...by his very act); 3] grave manifest sin,
obstinately maintained, which could be the case of the estimated 500 Catholic
pro-abortion politicians in the U.S.

Divorced and remarried Catholics also fall under this
canon 915. As some canonists point
out, citing Pope John Paul II, regarding
canon 915: "In the case of the
above 3], attention must be paid to the clear discipline of the church in cases
of Catholics who: a) prefer to contract a merely civil marriage and who reject
or at least defer the religious marriage; b) divorced persons who have
remarried. In the first case, the pastors of the Church will, regrettably, not
be able to admit them to the sacraments; and in the second case, the Church
reaffirms its practice of not admitting them to Eucharistic communion from the
fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of
love between Christ and the Church, which is signified and effected by the
Eucharist" (JPII, Ap.Exhort. FC nos. 82, 84; AAS nos. 74, l83, l85; TPS n. 27
[1982] ß 71, 73; PCLT: HCDCRC).

The revised 1997 CCC also addressed divorced and remarried Catholics, saying
they may receive the Eucharist if, 'they have repented for having violated the
sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living
in complete continence' ('frater soror' or as brother and sister) (CCC 1650).

Canon 915 is a 'sacramental
law' that talks about the Eucharist and how not to suffer scandal; it is not a
penal law. There are four parts to
canon 915 that must be satisfied: 1) The sin must be obstinate; 2) the
person in question must persist in the sin; 3) the person in question must be a
'manifest' (that is 'public') sinner; and, 4) it must be a grave sin. When all
requirements are met, the Bishop, bound by
canon 915 to protect the integrity
of the Eucharist, must give the public notification to his priests and deacons
not to allow sacrilegious Communions, and to not cause scandal to the people.
The Bishop here is not putting 'sanction' on the persons in question; they have,
in fact, fallen under the canon 915
sacramental prohibition themselves.

Some say there are contradictions concerning the canonical notification
(c.915) and the application of justice of other 'human rights.' Let me explain.

On November 11, 2003, during the USCCB's Fall plenary meeting of its 275
active bishop members, attempt was made by several bishops to consider which
Catholic politicians who dissent from Magisterial teachings should be denied the
Sacrament of Holy Communion, including the abuse of such human rights as the
death penalty, questions of war and peace, the role of marriage and family, the
rights of parents to choose the best education for their children, the priority
for the poor, welcome for immigrants. These Bishops were trying to revive from
the grave the late Cardinal Bernardin's false 'seamless garment theory.'

Archbishop Burke said on EWTN's interview, "The 'seamless garment' can be
interpreted incorrectly. Many fail to recognize the particular gravity of
abortion and euthanasia. These are the gravest matters. If we care about
abortion and euthanasia, all the other (human rights) will be therefore cared
for."

Some Catholics, both clergy and laity, falsely say that the death penalty is
on a par with abortion and euthanasia, and therefore anyone who defends the
death penalty should be disciplined under
canon 915. Archbishop Burke says
they are wrong:

"Pope John Paul II's 'Gospel of Life' teaches clearly the death penalty is
not on a par with abortion and euthanasia. Abortion is the greatest evil attack
on innocent, defenseless life. John Paul II said it is difficult to understand
why a State would have to put someone to death (EV n.56), but it is not a
definite exclusion (CIC, c. 2267). To say the death penalty is on the same level
is not correct."

Chancellor Nguyen said, when asked if supporting the Iraq War, as some
Bishops have claimed, was a condition for imposing
canon 915, "Pope John Paul II
certainly criticized the American invasion of Iraq, but he at no time
'condemned' the war, that is, issued a statement binding on the conscience of
the faithful."

Do the Bishops really believe that the above mentioned social issues
constitute mortal sin and grounds of excommunication in the same way that
abortion/euthanasia, cloning, IVF, sodomy, and contracepting do? Are these other
human rights to be classed in the same category as infallible teachings in faith
and morals? Alternatively, are our U.S. Bishops just creating a diversion
against canon 915?

Do the Bishops now rescind what they stated back in 1998: "Indeed, the
failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect
any claims to the 'rightness' of positions in other matters affecting the
poorest and least powerful of the human community" (LGL n.23).

Pope John Paul II teaches in his 1988 Apostolic Exhortation, "Above all, the
common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights - for example, the
right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture - is false and illusory
if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and condition of all
other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination" (CL n.38).

Bishops are, as 'Priest, Prophet and King,' called to 'govern' and 'correct.'
An unworthy public or private Holy Communion, willfully chosen by an obstinate,
persistent, manifest sinner 'of his own volition,' is a grave, serious matter.
When a 'pro death' Catholic politician disregards a bishop's directive and comes
to Holy Communion 'of his own volition,' and the bishop or priest does not deny
them as canon 915 directs them to do, the bishop or priest is doing evil (CIC,
n.1755), and what Pope Paul VI condemned when he said "one cannot do evil so
that good may follow there from" (HV n.14; Rom.3:8). According to the principle
of double effect, even in a moral dilemma the act in question must be good or at
least neutral. One may not do evil in order to accomplish good. The end does not
justify the means.

We next approach the erroneous understanding of separation of church and
state and canon 915. Archbishop Burke said, "There's
an ongoing scandal in our country with pro abortion politicians. If they
want to remain Catholic, they need to know how to act. They must publicly
rescind their support for abortion and euthanasia. 'What the majority wants' is
an erroneous argument if it is contrary to natural laws and God's laws. A few
decades of very weak catechesis manifested itself in confusion of what is truly
right and truly wrong. My priests (in La Crosse) have been grateful for the
clear direction of my Pastoral Letter. I have asked them to preach from it on
the Sunday of January 18 or Sunday of January 25. I've told them to give the
people the document to study."

Regarding the proper understanding of separation of church and state,
Chancellor Nguyen said, "Archbishop Burke is not asking the legislators to
impose beliefs distinctive to the Catholic faith on an unwilling populace. It
would be a sad day for America when only Catholics believe in the protection of
innocent life. Rather, he is calling upon them to defend innocent human life,
which is a basic responsibility of all civil institutions.

Archbishop Burke is not trying to 'influence legislation.' Rather, as a
pastor of the faithful in the Diocese, Archbishop Burke is protecting the
dignity of the sacraments, and addressing the grave scandal of Catholic
legislators who fail to defend innocent life. It is the obligation of the Bishop
to follow canon law for the salvation of souls."

The CDF's 'Doctrinal Note' regarding the participation of Catholics in
politics (November 24, 2002): "John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of
the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in
lawmaking bodies have a 'grave and clear obligation to oppose' any law that
attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote
such laws or to vote for them [DN n.4; cf. JPII, EV n.73].

Shortly after the CDF's issuance of 'Doctrinal Note,' in the CDW's December,
2002 Notitiae edition, we read from its former Prefect, Cardinal Medina-Estevez:

"Another fundamental right of the faithful, as noted in Canon 213, is 'the
right to receive assistance by the sacred Pastors from the spiritual goods of
the Church, especially the word of God and the Sacraments'. In view of the law
that 'sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask
for them if they are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from
receiving them' (Canon 843 1),
there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy
Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other
believers arising out of the person's unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy
or schism, publicly professed or declared."

In January 2003, two months after the CDF's 'Doctrinal Note' was issued, both
Massachusetts' Senators Kennedy and Kerry cited church-state separation as
their guiding principle. Kerry, who is running for president, said: "As a
Catholic, I have enormous respect for the words and teachings of the Vatican,
but as a public servant I've never forgotten the lasting legacy of President
Kennedy, who made clear that in accordance with the separation of church and
state no elected official should be 'limited or conditioned by any religious
oath, ritual or obligation [sic].í "

The Pope and diocesan bishops possess legislative power and they have a
right to enact laws for their dioceses, including penal laws, which impose latÊ
sententiÊ penalties (canon 1315,
canon 1318). The Church has an innate and
proper right to coerce offending members by means of penal laws or sacramental
disciplines (canon 1311).

The Code of Canon Law further instructs bishops: "A person is to be punished
with a just penalty, who, at a public event or assembly, or in a published
writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters
blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or
contempt for religion or the Church" (canon 1369).

Furthermore, the Code of Canon Law states that "A person who actually
procures an abortion incurs a latÊ sententiÊ excommunication" (canon 1398), and
"[those] who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to
Holy Communion" (canon 915).

Charles Wilson, Executive Director of The Saint Joseph Foundation said, "Dust
has gathered on the canon law books of bishops across the country. The bishops
haven't used the Church's penal system in years, despite obvious and serious
canonical infractions especially by Catholic politicians," he said.

Known courageous world bishops who did uphold canon 915 include Archbishop
George Pell of Sydney. Moreover, San Diego's Bishop Leo Maher, in 1989, informed
Catholic pro-abortion assemblywoman Lucy Killea that she was banned from
receiving Holy Communion under canon 915. Yet, neighboring Bishop Quinn of
Sacramento criticized Maher and told Killea she could receive in his diocese,
anytime, any place. In 2001, the Archbishop of Lima and Primate of Peru, Juan
Luis Cardinal Cipriani and Calgary Bishop Fred Henry, 2003, both said they would
deny Communion according to canon 915. Mexican Cardinal Norberto Rivera in
1999
said pro abortion Catholics in his diocese were excommunicated.

The Catholic Church consistently teaches that Catholics who are in the state
of grave sin should not receive Holy Communion, for this itself is a grave sin
and a sign of grave contradiction. St. Paul teaches this in 1 Cor. 11:27-29, as
does the CCC (1385, 1415). Even in the parish Missalettes throughout the U.S.,
Catholics who are in grave sin are warned not to receive the Eucharist (11/29/99
NCCB).

St. Thomas Aquinas answers, "A distinction must be made among sinners: some
are secret; others are notorious, either from evidence of the fact, as public
usurers, or public robbers or from being denounced as evil men by some
ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. Therefore Holy Communion ought not to be given
to open sinners when they ask for it" (STh, III: q 80: art 6).

Today, abortion is thriving. Abortion clinics supply the medical
establishment a virtually endless supply of human tissue that would otherwise be
unavailable had our Catholic Bishops enforced
canon 915. Pharmaceutical
companies and research hospitals all pay top dollars for organs, limbs and
tissue from l.5 million 'recorded' aborted babies each year. How many unborn
children would have surely been saved from the death of abortion had the 195
Bishops, 30 years ago, spoken out on the canonical law
canon 915?

Two Bishops out of the 195 U.S. dioceses had the rectitude of intention to
follow the clearly defined canonical disciplines of the Catholic Church. Before
Vatican II, clergy were vigilant to protect the Eucharist from sacrilege. Today,
most clergy are more likely to deny the Eucharist to the faithful whose posture
is one of reverent kneeling, rather than standing.

Bishop Bruskewitzís Vicar General, Monsignor Timothy J. Thorburn, J.C.L.,
addressed this writerís question of whether Lincolnís synodal law applied to
legislators from other dioceses that were manifestly pro-abortion. Monsignor
Thorburn answered it is best for ministers of Holy Communion to err on the side
of reverence of the Eucharist:

ìIf I had denied holy Communion to someone who is known to be manifest,
persistent and obstinate in his grave sin and he later demonstrates that he had,
in fact, publicly denied his promotion of, say, abortion, I then would publicly
apologize to him.î

Archbishop Burke said the most compelling reason why he issued the canonical
notification (c.915) was the many letters written by his flock to press him to
refuse the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians. "It's a serious situation in
our country; we need more good statesmen...I did not excommunicate these
politicians; however, if they persist in their sin in a public way, there will
be further disciplines against the politicians."